Our first amendment gives us the right express ourselves freely, but in many cases it seems that it is a double edged sword. Yes, people should have the right to voice there opinions, but there is a thin line between protecting that right and taking that right away from others at the same time. I could agree that the opinions of a klu klux klan member would be offensive to most. but that most is not all, and those with opinions no matter how ignorant they are have the right to promote and support there beliefs. Examples of this was in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case of 1969. Brandenburg was tried ans convicted for violating Ohio's criminal syndicalism law. This law states that a person is not allowed to act in dangerous or violent ways to accomplish political reform.
Soon after conviction, the judgment was over turned. His first amendment right of freedom of speech saved him from conviction, calling his racist banter was merely "advocacy".
I asked myself the same question as the writer asks on page 118." Does hate speech deserve the same constitutional protection as other forms of speech?" and these were my conclusions:
Yes and no:
ignorance in large quantities has proven to ultimately to do more harm than good by protecting there right to "hate Speech" through out history. During the civil rights movement, the ideas that African Americans were sub-human lead to lynchings, burning of churches and homes and many deaths from both civilians and police forces. It was wide spread, and yes something that had been around since the days of slavery, but why go through a civil war and many amendments to not back it up years later?
Though i do and will always think that ignorance is pointless, how can you differentiate harmful from "in fun" forms of racist on a constitutional level? for those of you that like comedy, how many have laughed at a comedian saying a stereotypical joke about another race? i am not ashamed that i have whether it was white, black, Asian, or whatever but i also know my stand on these issues. But where can we draw that line to what is comfortable and what is over the line? Yes there is a big difference from saying that "all n* should go to Africa, and all Jews to Israel" as Brandonburg did. But its not a far cry from you tube videos like " the amazing racist" that push the point of comedy at anothers expense to dangerous heights. This could open old wounds or make it okay to go to neighborhoods and openly slap a culture in the face. But i would feel offended if things like amazing racist were censored.
So its understandable why it may be hard to uphold with out down grading others. The line between the good and the bad is thin. Banning hate speech cant be broken down with out infringing our rights but allowing people to say what ever they want to bring out those feelings of hate in others is dangerous for the people under fire. Being bi-racial may have aided in my thoughts about the harm and harmless of crime of the speech. But it is our right, and i hope that if it were to get to a dangerous level that we the people would acknowledge and correct it with our states and government.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Referendum and Initiative
A Direct Democracy is a form of democracy in which political power is exorcised directly by citizens. Just as the chapter reads, this is an example of direct gateways giving the people the opportunity to influence there government.
Some of these gateways are in the form recalls, initiatives and referendum that vary state to state.I am not a native of Tennessee and, I was both shocked and appalled to learn that as a resident of Tennessee I did not have the rights as I did In Michigan. Michigan has both referendum and initiative rights for citizens while Tennessee has neither option. I immediately thought about a proposal that took place a few years back in Detroit. Proposal One and Two were hot button issues on the ballot. It was the citizens responsibility to decide whether or not to legalize Stem-cell research and medical marijuana. Later that year the votes were in and both proposals were passed. While researching facts with family the issue touched i came across something interesting that really was not even a part of my original intent. I never will claim to know all i can about government and I am here to learn almost blindly, but i was curious onto how something like this could happen.
In a conversation my grandmother spoke about a vote for capital punishment that took place some time back. She remembers her vote and why she voted and the out come of the ballot. Capital punishment was voted into the state laws. She went on to say that this was short lived and that soon there after legislature repealed the vote and decided against it. How does this happen? How can something on the ballot be removed after the people have decided whether for or against it. This is not a rhetorical question, but something that i am truly interested to know. So any one that has the answer share it with me, share it with others that may not know as well.
Some of these gateways are in the form recalls, initiatives and referendum that vary state to state.I am not a native of Tennessee and, I was both shocked and appalled to learn that as a resident of Tennessee I did not have the rights as I did In Michigan. Michigan has both referendum and initiative rights for citizens while Tennessee has neither option. I immediately thought about a proposal that took place a few years back in Detroit. Proposal One and Two were hot button issues on the ballot. It was the citizens responsibility to decide whether or not to legalize Stem-cell research and medical marijuana. Later that year the votes were in and both proposals were passed. While researching facts with family the issue touched i came across something interesting that really was not even a part of my original intent. I never will claim to know all i can about government and I am here to learn almost blindly, but i was curious onto how something like this could happen.
In a conversation my grandmother spoke about a vote for capital punishment that took place some time back. She remembers her vote and why she voted and the out come of the ballot. Capital punishment was voted into the state laws. She went on to say that this was short lived and that soon there after legislature repealed the vote and decided against it. How does this happen? How can something on the ballot be removed after the people have decided whether for or against it. This is not a rhetorical question, but something that i am truly interested to know. So any one that has the answer share it with me, share it with others that may not know as well.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
The Constitution
Looking at the effect of the options that there are from the rights that we have as promised by the constitution seemed rather interesting to me. As i studied Figure 2.4 on page 63 of the chapter i tried to see if there were any correlations between what was important to the colonists in its beginnings versus what has grown to be important to citizens later on. Between he years 1791 and 1992 there was a total of twenty seven amendments with a total of forty individual rights involved. This was broken down in the chart in to five main groups. Criminal procedure, Participation, Equality, Structure, and Miscellaneous.
Participation labeled eight of the Amendments, all being passed with in the first one hundred years of our history. Criminal Procedure labeled 13 Amendments splitting it 4 every hundred years. Equality had a low number of four Amendments, one of which was passed in the second hundred years.Structure dealt with Eight additions to the Amendments almost making even between the centuries five to four. And last but not least, Seven Miscellaneous Amendments ranging from involuntary quartering of soldiers to limiting congressional pay raises. During the years since the two hundred year mark there have been a total of two items passed, guaranteeing 18 year olds the right to vote in 1971, and limiting congressional pay raises in 1992.
In my opinion it seems that as a group we are satisfied with criminal procedure as well as Equality when looking at the information shown in the chart... I ask this question to you.. Based on what things you hear and observe in society, do you think this is correct for our day. Our we secure in the way that justice takes place on both sides of the criminal procedures? Are there things we can improve on or challenge? Another question is with activists for multiple causes and groups do you see a pattern in what our Future Amendments could include?
Participation labeled eight of the Amendments, all being passed with in the first one hundred years of our history. Criminal Procedure labeled 13 Amendments splitting it 4 every hundred years. Equality had a low number of four Amendments, one of which was passed in the second hundred years.Structure dealt with Eight additions to the Amendments almost making even between the centuries five to four. And last but not least, Seven Miscellaneous Amendments ranging from involuntary quartering of soldiers to limiting congressional pay raises. During the years since the two hundred year mark there have been a total of two items passed, guaranteeing 18 year olds the right to vote in 1971, and limiting congressional pay raises in 1992.
In my opinion it seems that as a group we are satisfied with criminal procedure as well as Equality when looking at the information shown in the chart... I ask this question to you.. Based on what things you hear and observe in society, do you think this is correct for our day. Our we secure in the way that justice takes place on both sides of the criminal procedures? Are there things we can improve on or challenge? Another question is with activists for multiple causes and groups do you see a pattern in what our Future Amendments could include?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)